Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Umm, was it more than an oppportunistic attack at net neurality?


UK has never had net neutrality, there are many limited data phone plans that include unlimited music/video etc


The UK does have net neutrality, and it's quite strictly regulated by Ofcom, which produces an annual report showing compliance and highlighting any issues it has investigated:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/internet-based-services/network-neu...

Things like restrictions on tethering and using a SIM in a router are forbidden.

Unlike most countries, net neutrality has never been a political football in the UK.

Ofcom groups zero rating schemes into three types:

Type one - government and NGO services (always allowed).

Type two - where categories of service (e.g. video or music streaming apps) are zero rated, but any service fitting into the category can apply to be zero rated by the network.

Type three - any other kind of zero rating.

Things like the VOXI Unlimited Social Media packages fit into Type Two, so are expressly permitted.

For the rest, Ofcom assessed the impact on consumers, which is generally low.


This is not net neutrality, all network traffic is not treated equally.

Ofcom seems to have invented their own definition of net neutrality and placed it on that website, but calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. This is tiered access.


It doesn't meet a perfect theoretical definition of net neutrality, but it's a set of defined legal limits on the extent to which providers can treat different kinds of traffic differently.


Net neutrality is not theoretical, it is literally the default setting.

Any deviation from that default requires special effort be taken to identify network traffic and treat it differently, and as soon as you have made that effort you cannot truthfully claim to have net neutrality. The UK does not prohibit net neutrality but it does not require it either (according to the comment I replied to which I have not verified).


I guess to me this seems a bit like saying that free markets are the default setting. We’re not in some kind of perfect state of nature. We’re in a complex interconnected society where virtually everything of any importance is regulated to some extent. What you’re saying seems like saying “as soon as you impose one regulation you no longer have a free market”.


This non sequitur strains my ability to assume good faith on your part. We're not talking about markets, we're talking about a utility.

Does your water company bill you differently depending on what you use the water for? Your gas company? Electric? This is not a complicated concept to understand, please make an effort.


It’s just an analogy. I can understand if you don’t think the analogy lands, but it hardly seems grounds for doubting good faith.

And err, yes, not everyone is billed for water or electricity on the same terms as private homes.

>This is not a complicated concept to understand, please make an effort.

You could leave this out? It’s not the most effective way to bring people round to your point of view.


Ok but the main limit people care about is music and video streaming being treated differently


What would be the model of a country with stronger net neutrality laws? I think EU regulations are now a touch stronger than UK regulations due to post-Brexit divergence, but by world standards, the UK has strong net neutrality protections.


The important issue of net neutrality is not so much zero rating as degradation or blocking of content and services.

The OSA has forced the reverse: sites have to be non neutral as to where their traffic is going.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: